Thought I'd share.
(Disclaimer, I went in blind...didn't know what I was going to vote for, or who, or even what was on the ballot... and didn't even know if I'd be able to (turns out it's easier to vote than to get a library card)).
On the issue of charter schools, I voted yes. I figure it'd open up opportunities for me to possibly get a job at one of them, and I think it opens up other options for people who want more of a handle on what their kids learn. Don't really see an argument against it.
On the issue of instating a legislative or voter majority requirement before they raise taxes for businesses, I voted yes. I might be starting a business soon (actually, technically, I have a business) and I don't want people raising taxes without there being at least some opposition by someone.
On the issue of same sex marriage, I voted no. Here's the thing with this, I'm not too sure that same sex couples should have the exact same privileges of heterosexual couples. For example, I'm not too sure two guys/girls should be allowed to adopt a child as if it doesn't affect his/her development. So, I see at least a few kinks still to be worked out. Though, if certain caveats came with their marriage, then, let them get married. Besides, if a church/organization is willing to marry you, then you're married. You don't even have to be confirmed by anyone to be married, you can just "be married" and that's that. But, the implications in some areas are at least not well thought out.
On the legalization of marijuana, I voted no. I don't like the idea of legalizing it, or decriminilizing it, as I don't think it should be used at the end of the day. That's my stand on alcohol and tobacco as well. I looked at it from a practical perspective as well...it's going to be used regardless...so procurement isn't an issue. The issue is whether humans should be getting high/drunk/stoned (or all three) and I think that if they choose to do so, they should be allowed to, but as a society it's to discouraged. That doesn't mean don't use, it just means, if you're going to, be smart about it. It's easy to get away with...this I know. But, it's still a "tsk tsk" in my book, so my position reflects that.
On putting a limit on the amount of debt allowable, I voted no. Debt is the new credit. Invest in debt (take out huge loans, buy what you need to buy to have a good life, assuming that they allow you to (they don't allow me to, they don't trust me)) and watch the debt bubble burst. You won't have to pay your debts back, or, it'll be a long and painful process for them to get all their debts. Until the debt/credit system is fixed, go ahead and abuse it. So, the state should invest in it while it's still available. Because, it's likely that it won't be for too much longer.
On allowing universities (including my own, funnily) to invest publicly acquired funds in the private sector, as if they were corporations, I voted no. Education isn't a business, and it shouldn't be run like one. It serves higher ends. If they need funds (which they don't, they charge us way too much to attend as it is) then start cutting programs. Particularly, sports. Either monetize college sports and run that as a business (even more than they do) or start cutting them. If people need their sports fix, what do you think the professional leagues are for? Besides, universities aren't strapped for cash.
On a tax increase for businesses, I voted no. If people want jobs, or if someone wants the opportunity to create an organization, it shouldn't be made harder for them than it already is. It's already pretty hard, the competition from others doing the same makes it so. So, don't hit them when they're already hurting...every penny counts.
On tax increases for businesses holding petroleum products, I voted yes. Right now, globally, oil is at a premium (npi)...it's fair that we make it more expensive for ourselves and therefore more accessible to everyone else. Or, do you think the second and third world are just going to sit by and let the U.S. use all those resources? They won't, and seeing as nukes aren't too hard to make these days, that is, in the right conditions it wouldn't be too hard to acquire the stuff needed to make one, even for a second or third world country, evening out the game is to our (and everyone else's) advantage (whoever we, is, that is). We can't stop it, and we shouldn't anyway. It's their right to have them as much as it is ours, and they'll get them even if that weren't the case. And, yeah, frankly, you put pressure on a desperate situation, with a desperate leader, and it's all over. So, by voting yes, it puts pressure on people to stop investing in it, because if we're going after the same stuff that everyone else is going after, we'll either lose economically, or, more likely, we'll go find another Iraq. In an effort to avoid that, make it more expensive for us, willingly, and hope that drives demand for solutions to the problem other than "Give us your oil or else".
And going off of the above, on an increase of funding (drawn from people who use public transportation) for improving the public transportation system, I voted yes. It's a small step towards not being so dependent on oil, the consequences of which lead only to an end that has no way of being good for anyone.
And, I voted for the libertarian ticket. Socially, do whatever you want, right? Who cares...just don't be surprised when other people are doing the same. If you don't like what they are doing...turn a blind eye. It's not your life. Financially, if you continue using public resources at an accelerated rate, you're just making it harder for those of us who'll come after us. And, humanity needs at least a couple more generations beyond us before we end up killing ourselves/dying. Ideally, that'll never happen. Humans will always exist in some form or the other...but, if we're going to stay on this ball in the middle of nowhere, that's the only end possible.
For that not to happen, though, we'd have to seriously and collectively make the effort to get off the planet, and to do that, the first thing would be to start collecting resources towards an agreed upon end...not wasting it on useless crap. We might as well give other generations a chance to do what we won't be able to.
Anyone who was running unopposed got my vote. If no one else wants the job, it's yours to have.
And, for state politicians who were binarized into the two parties, I left it empty. Going in with a binarized mindset isn't something I care to promote.
And there was a curious case where two democrats were running against one republican, and I left it blank, though I'd hope a democrat wins it...though I'm ignorant of either of their politics.
And with that, my civic duty is done. We may now revert back to collectively wasting our time as death comes at us at an ever increasing rate. But, hey, at least it's a fun ride....and all the possible ends are interesting to speculate about, even though we won't be able to actually live any of them, other than the ones in our immediate future. But then again, would you even want to?
I hope that all makes sense.